Attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and support for lesbian and gay human rights among psychology students

A questionnaire comprising two scales, the short form of the Attitudes Towards Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG-S; Herek, 1984) and the newly devised Support for Lesbian and Gay Human Rights Scale (SLGHR) were administered to 226 students taking undergraduate psychology courses at universities in the United Kingdom, to assess their attitudes towards lesbians and gay men, and their level of support for lesbian and gay human rights. The results indicated that whilst only a small percentage of respondents expressed negative attitudes towards lesbians and gay men on the ATLG-S, the sample as a whole did not overwhelmingly support lesbian and gay human rights. The lack of support for lesbian and gay human rights is discussed in relation to its implications for psychology students as future practitioners and policy makers. </p

Rights-based reasoning in discussions about lesbian and gay issues: implications for moral educators

Despite a paucity of psychological research exploring the interface between lesbian and gay issues and human rights, a human rights framework has been widely adopted in debates to gain equality for lesbians and gay men. Given this prominence within political discourse of human rights as a framework for the promotion of positive social change for lesbians and gay men, the aim of this study was to explore the extent to which rights-based arguments are employed when talking about lesbian and gay issues in a social context. An analysis of six focus group discussions with students showed that when lesbian and gay issues are discussed, rights-based reasoning is employed intermittently, and in relation to certain issues more so than others. The implications of these findings for moral education aimed at promoting positive social change for lesbians and gay men are discussed.</p

The Friends and Family Plan: Assessing the Impact of Knowing Someone Gay on Support for Gay Rights

I estimate the impact of knowing someone gay on acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights. Method: Logit analyses on individual-level data from 27 national surveys control for demographic and political variables that predict both acquaintance with lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) and support for gay rights. Findings: Knowing LGBs affects beliefs on the morality of homosexual relations, employment discrimination, gays in the military, sodomy laws, and same-sex marriage. Conclusion: Coming out remains an important strategy in the battle for gay rights. Working Paper 08-1

Personal Relationships and Support for Gay Rights

Since the early days of the gay liberation movement, activists have argued that coming out to heterosexuals would increase acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights. Though the empirical research has generally supported this hypothesis, it has not adequately controlled for reciprocal causation: having positive attitudes toward homosexuality increases the probability that a gay, lesbian, or bisexual person (LGB) will come out to you. This paper re-estimates the effect of knowing LGBs on support for gay rights using individual-level data from 27 surveys of the national population conducted since 1983. I first assess whether the same characteristics predict both attitudes and acquaintance. I next examine the effect of knowing LGBs on acceptance of homosexuality and support for gay rights in three ways: using logit models that control for the demographic and political variables used in step one, using propensity score matching to restrict comparisons of those who know LGBs to others who are as similar as possible, and using logit models for support for gay rights that also control for acceptance of homosexuality. Findings confirm that knowing LGBs affects beliefs on the morality of homosexual relations, employment discrimination, gays in the military, sodomy laws, and samesex marriage. Working Paper 07-1

Moral reasoning and homosexuality: the acceptability of arguments about lesbian and gay issues

In the political arena, lesbian and gay issues have typically been contested on grounds of human rights, but with variable success. Using a moral developmental framework, the purpose of this study was to explore preferences for different types of moral arguments when thinking about moral dilemmas around lesbian and gay issues. The analysis presented here comprised data collected from 545 students at UK universities, who completed a questionnaire, part of which comprised a moral dilemma task. Findings of the study showed that respondents do not apply moral reasoning consistently, and do not (clearly) favour human rights reasoning when thinking about lesbian and gay issues. Respondents tended to favour reasoning supporting existing social structures and frameworks, therefore this study highlights the importance of structural change in effecting widespread attitude change in relation to lesbian and gay rights issues. The implications of the findings for moral education are also discussed.</p

The Rhetoric of Gay Christians: Matthew Vines and Reverend Nancy Wilson as Exemplars

In the United States, there is a perception that the gay rights debate situates Christians against gay rights advocates. According to this perception, Christians oppose gay rights, because the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin, and those who support gay rights do so using purely secular arguments. This perception of the gay rights debate is flawed and overly simplistic, because simply not all Christians oppose gay rights. In fact, there are multiple interpretations of biblical texts that support homosexuality and have caused a gay rights debate within the church that is as complex and intricate as gay rights debate outside of the church. Within this debate, gay Christians must negotiate their own identities

Denying equality: an analysis of arguments against lowering the age of consent for sex between men

This paper takes a human rights approach to lesbian and gay oppression and critically explores the arguments used to oppose equality in the debates about the age of consent for sex between men. A thematic analysis of Hansard and newspaper reports produced in Britain during the 1990s showed that opponents of the amendment to equalise the age of consent countered with three key arguments laying claim to ethical principles overriding the principle of equality. These were: (1) Principles of right and wrong take precedence over equality; (2) Principles of democracy take precedence over equality; (3) Principles of care and protection take precedence over equality. Two additional arguments (the health risks of anal intercourse, and escalating demands for gay rights) are also outlined. Our findings are discussed with reference to debates on other lesbian and gay rights issues, and we consider the ways in which we might best counter these arguments. </p

Lawyering for Social Justice

It is an honor, albeit a sad one, to be invited to write this Essay in commemoration of Tom Stoddard and as commentary on his final publication. I first met Tom in the late 1970s, when we both joined the Board of Directors of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. Both of us were American Civil Liberties Union staff attorneys, Tom for the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and I for the Reproducfive Freedom Project in the national office. Later, for the last half of the 1980s, Tom was the Executive Director of Lambda during the same period that I was Director of the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights and AIDS Projects. Much of my professional life has been spent in tandem with Tom\u27s, and his absence creates a giant gap in that world. Not many of us are pioneers, but Tom Stoddard was. He fought for equality for lesbian and gay Americans before it was respectable; he was proudly out as a gay man before it was professionally safe to be out; and he taught one of the first courses centering on the rights of lesbians and gay men in any American law school. He lived to see the lesbian and gay civil rights struggle take its place with others as a campaign for human dignity and justice

When Do Opponents of Gay Rights Mobilize? Explaining Political Participation in Times of Backlash against Liberalism

Existing research suggests that supporters of gay rights have outmobilized their opponents, leading to policy changes in advanced industrialized democracies. At the same time, we observe the diffusion of state-sponsored homophobia in many parts of the world. The emergence of gay rights as a salient political issue in global politics leads us to ask, “Who is empowered to be politically active in various societies?” What current research misses is a comparison of levels of participation (voting and protesting) between states that make stronger and weaker appeals to homophobia. Voters face contrasting appeals from politicians in favor of and against gay rights globally. In an analysis of survey data from Europe and Latin America, we argue that the alignment between the norms of sexuality a state promotes and an individual’s personal attitudes on sexuality increases felt political efficacy. We find that individuals who are tolerant of homosexuality are more likely to participate in states with gay-friendly policies in comparison with intolerant individuals. The reverse also holds: individuals with low education levels that are intolerant of homosexuality are more likely to participate in states espousing political homophobia

It’s Really About Sex: Same-Sex Marriage, Lesbigay Parenting, and the Psychology of Disgust

The effects of gay and lesbian parenting on children has been the touchstone issue in much of the recent state litigation on same sex marriage, with opponents of same sex marriage arguing that there is a rational basis for denying marriage rights to gays and lesbians because the central purpose of marriage is procreation and childrearing, but that children are harmed or disadvantaged when raised by gay or lesbian parents. To interrogate this claim, I critique the social science research that informs the concerns frequently expressed about the possible negative effects of lesbigay parenting on children\u27s emotional, psychosocial, and sexual development. In particular, I focus on research relevant to whether growing up in a lesbigay household is as positive an experience for children as growing up in a heterosexual household, as much of the literature to date has addressed the issue of whether lesbigay parenting is harmful to children. I conclude that the research fails to support the theory that denying marriage or parenting rights to same sex couples serves the welfare of children. I further argue that public opposition to gay marriage, particularly in the context of lesbigay parenting, is animated by a deeper concern - the proverbial “elephant in the room” on gay rights issues. That elephant is the visceral disgust reaction that many Americans feel toward homosexual sex, and the resulting moral intuition that homosexuality and homosexual relationships are immoral. Thus, many people will conclude that it is better for children to be raised in heterosexual households because they do not want children exposed to the lesbigay “lifestyle.” Nor do they want to increase the “risk” that children will develop a homosexual orientation if they are raised by lesbigay parents. The article discusses new psychological research on moral decision making, which suggests that the “moral” emotion of disgust is at the root of much of the opposition to gay rights. The disgust reaction is likely a byproduct of human evolution that fails to inform rational judgments about the policy questions surrounding lesbigay parenting and marriage rights